The plaintiff is a person who engages in the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal with the trade name in Ulsan-gun D, Ulsan-si, and the defendant B is a person who engages in the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal with the trade name in the name of the defendant C, who is a partner of the Dong, and in the name of G from Busan-gu.

The plaintiff from June 12, 2014 to the same year

6. From 17th day to 3th day, 68,413 tons of scrap metal to the above G was supplied to KRW 225,762,90,00, and only KRW 85,762,90 out of the above payment was paid to the above G around July 2014, and the remainder of KRW 140,00,000 was unpaid.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, and the purport of Gap evidence 2-2 and 3-2-3 as well as the purport of the whole argument and the cause of claim for judgment, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendants jointly operated the above G, the plaintiff jointly operated the above G, the plaintiff should pay the above payment amount of KRW 140,00,000 and its delay damages to the plaintiff, and that the defendant C shall be liable as the nominal lender even if it cannot be viewed as the partner.

However, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 140,000,000 won due and delay damages therefrom. As the Plaintiff seeks, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 140,000,000 won and delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) from November 20, 2014, following the day after the day when the instant complaint was served to the Plaintiff by the said complaint, to September 30, 2015 under the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); and the next day until the day after full payment is made at the rate of 15% per annum under Article 2(2) of the Addenda to the main sentence of Article 3(1).

On the other hand, as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendant C only lent only the name of the business operator to the defendant B, who is not related to the transaction in this case, and the plaintiff was also aware of it, the defendant was punished.